You are here: / / DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING CAR IN VIOLATION OF...

DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING CAR IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment finding defendant negligent in this traffic accident case. Defendant made a left turn in front of an oncoming car and testified he did not see the oncoming car. That constituted negligence as a matter of law, irrespective of whether defendant stopped at a stop sign before the accident:

​

Plaintiffs met their initial burden by establishing that defendant was negligent in violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) by turning left at an intersection directly into the path of an oncoming vehicle and that defendant’s violation of the statute was unexcused … . Additionally, inasmuch as defendant admitted in his deposition testimony that he never saw the oncoming vehicle prior to the collision, we conclude that defendant was negligent as a matter of law in failing to see what was there to be seen and in crossing in front of an oncoming vehicle when it was hazardous to do so … . Although we agree with defendant that there are conflicting accounts concerning whether he stopped at the posted stop sign prior to the accident, we conclude that this minor discrepancy does not raise an issue of fact precluding an award of summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor on the issue of defendant’s negligence because in either scenario defendant was negligent as a matter of law … . Peterson v Ward, 2017 NY Slip Op 09024, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING CAR IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING CAR IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING CAR IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
A STACK OF DRYWALL LEANING AGAINST A WALL AND PARTIALLY BLOCKING A DOORWAY FELL OVER ON PLAINTIFF’S ANKLE AS PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO MOVE IT; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Non-Supervising Property Owner Not Liable Under Common Law or Labor Law 200 for Injury Stemming from the Manner In Which the Work Is Done
ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS TO A RECREATIONAL EASEMENT ARE NECESSARY PARTIES BUT NOT ALL WERE INCLUDED AS PLAINTIFFS; ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED, THE ACTION MAY BE RECOMMENCED WITH ALL THE PROPER PARTIES (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Police Officer Struck by Plaintiffs’ Decedents When the Officer Was Making a U-Turn to Follow a Car Was Entitled to Summary Judgment Under the Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard
PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE RENDERED THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; REFERENCE TO THE “ENFORCEMENT” OF THE LOAN DOCUMENTS INDICATED THE POSSIBILITY OF REPRESENTATION AFTER THE DATE OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SUBROGATION ACTION BY THE INSURER OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE AFTER A GLOBAL SETTLEMENT WITH THE INJURED PARTY (FOURTH DEPT).
FALSE ARREST AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTIONS AGAINST THE RESTAURANT FRANCHISOR PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF CONTROL OVER THE DAY TO DAY OPERATION OF THE RESTAURANT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT APPLY WHERE DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER PROHIBITED POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN THE WORKPLACE.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (FOURTH... ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE...